Archive for the ‘Abstinence’ Category

SEX sells– are YOU buying?

In Abstinence, Child Development, Choice, Cohabitation, Divorce, Education, Families, Marriage, Media, Parental Rights, Parenting, Planned Parenthood, Pornography, Schools, Sex Education, Sexual Freedom, Technology, Values on April 21, 2016 at 10:46 am

reforming-sexby Mekelle Tenney

What happened to your standards America? What happened to your morality? I am both amazed and disgusted at our entertainment today. Amazed that we can’t find anything other than sex to write and joke about and disgusted that we are entertained by it. Whenever I have the radio on I have to flip through five or six stations before I can find a song that isn’t about sex. Of course there is the occasional song about a woman’s “smokin hot body” or about the abusive cheating boyfriend. TV is the same way. You can hardly find a comedy that doesn’t use sex as the main source of its humor. And of course it doesn’t stop there.

We use sex to sell everything from cars to dog food to hamburgers. You might say that we have turned it into nothing more than a selling point for entertainment and marketing. But we have done a lot more than that. We have normalized and rationalized immorality and infidelity. We no longer expect high moral standards from our leaders or our families. In our society premarital sex is acceptable. Teenage sex is also acceptable. I would argue that it is even encouraged. Kids go to school and their health teachers tell them “everyone is doing it”.

Government funded organizations such as Planned Parenthood encourage teens to explore their sexuality and to learn what feels good through masturbation. They teach teens that as long as they use protection it’s okay and perfectly natural. Natural? Really? Let’s look at some of the results of our corrupt morality.

  • Every year 1,600,000 children are born to unwed mothers (that is 40% of all live births in America)
  • In 56% of divorce cases infidelity is cited as a major cause
  • Every second 28,258 people are viewing pornography
  • Every minute $184,500 is spent on pornography
  • 38% of adults say that pornography is morally acceptable
  • Every day there are 116,000 internet searches for child pornography
  • 46% of high school students admit to having sex at least once
  • More than half of all American’s will have an STD at least once in their life

This is not natural.  This is obsessive and destructive. There is nothing natural about people who allow their obsessions to destroy their health and their family.

The callous attitude toward morality in our society must change. I believe that the influence of the family will have the most powerful effect for change. We need to stop allowing the media and public schools to set the standard for morality in America. Our children’s understanding of physical intimacy and morality is our responsibility. We can reverse the moral decay of America simply by choosing to teach our children. The standard of morality in America should be set and protected by the family.

Families are Struggling–Symptoms are Worldwide

In Abstinence, Birth Rate, Child Development, Cohabitation, Demographic Decline, Divorce, Families, Marriage, Media, Parenting, Pornography, Religion, Sexual Freedom, Values on April 15, 2016 at 9:25 am

families around the worldThe following is taken from the UFI Alert dated April 6, 2016.


The following questions were asked a German couple who are well acquainted with what is happening to family values in Germany/Austria and Switzerland. Reading their responses to the following questions, it is apparent that families throughout the world are facing the same struggles.  Because these issues are so prevalent in our culture have we become numb to them?   What can we be doing to help our spouses, children and grandchildren to stand strong against the forces that would destroy our families.

Q – What are some of the biggest problems families are facing in Switzerland?
•    The politically-correct view of our society on divorce as something that is a pretty normal part of life in relationships;
•    Occupational and financial prosperity as key success indicators;
•    The rapid, even dramatic loss of religious interest and faith in God in our society in the past couple of years/decades.
Technology.jpg•    The biggest problems deal with the consequences of digital media usage (focus/distraction/addiction; anytime/anyplace availability, pornography everywhere, easy access, gaming habits/time consumption, continuing interaction with former friends/partners; media usage by children/youth and unprepared, overwhelmed parents). 


Perception of people and relationships as well as rhythms in life change dramatically (e.g., last thing in the evening and first thing in the morning is a cooperative computer game and not the spouse, children, etc.).

Q – Are parents having fewer children?
•    In the past 5 years the birth rate has been rather stable with on the average 1.5 children, with 20% of those stemming from unwed mothers (Switzerland). It has to be added that this considers the childbirth rate of foreigners as well, which is often higher than the one of Swiss couples. For many young couples the goal is two children at most.

Q – Do many couples live together without getting married?
•    Here, marriage definitely is not the standard “framework” for intimate relationships; cohabitation is mostly not even a topic anymore. It increasingly becomes the generally accepted and expected norm, with couples choosing marriage some time later in life or not at all (with less and less legal/fiscal reasons for marriage, if at all; in Switzerland it is fiscally more attractive to cohabit). The average marriage age is 30 – 31 in Switzerland.

Q – Is pornography impacting families?
•    Yes, young couples as well as older relationships. Although pornography is mostly not viewed as a “bad thing” in the Swiss public, people are slowly but surely starting to see that it can still be (and often is) destructive for people and in relationships. But many still live in denial and judge pornography “politically correct” as something that just has to be dealt with wisely, as is the case with legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco (publicly widely accepted vices here in our area).

We appreciate the Gappmaiers for teaming up with United Families International, and we look forward to continuing to work together to strengthen families.

Are “Sexual Rights” Legitimate?

In Abstinence, Child Development, Choice, Constitution, Courts, Democracy, Families, Feminism, Free Speech, Freedom, Gay rights, Gender, Government, Health Care, Homosexuality, Human Rights, Marriage, Parenting, Planned Parenthood, Religion, Religious rights, Same-Sex Marriage, Schools, Sexual Freedom, Transgender, Values on March 18, 2016 at 11:39 am

sexual freedomby Christie Masters

I had thirty seconds to tell a room full of delegates at our recent County convention why they should vote for me to be a delegate to the State Convention. Standing in line, nervously awaiting my turn, I had listened to those who went before me; we were all just everyday folks taking pride and interest in our American elections process and each one of us stated as quickly and clearly as we could, what issues and freedoms were most on our minds, and which ones needed to be emphasized and defended. My fellow delegates mentioned freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Some highlighted the 2nd Amendment, but most referred to the Bill of Rights in general, and the essential freedoms they felt were slipping away. By the time it was my turn, I was able to squeak out my genuine admiration for the entire Constitution and share my passionate pro-life position.

No one mentioned “sexual rights” that day. Frankly, it would have been out of place. The people at this convention were concerned about their country, their families, and their liberty. Actual rights like freedom of conscience, of religion and speech, are all fundamental concepts that have been the focus of ethical thought for centuries. Although the “right to life” for the unborn has been recent in comparison, following the sheer magnitude of abortions that have occurred since Roe v. Wade, there is a moral chasm between fighting for the right to live and fighting for the alleged “right” of sexual preference or experience.

However, we must ask, are “sexual rights” legitimate? Organizations like Planned Parenthood (as well as others) tell us that they are. This terminology is used to validate their disturbing trend of selling sex to children in schools, exposing them to graphic material and suggestions at younger and younger ages. However, in order to answer this inquiry, we must begin from where rights originate.

The founding documents of our country, our system of government, and the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, are all based upon the concept of unalienable rights. These rights are unalienable because of their origin, our Creator. This worldview, that all men are created, determines that there is a higher and permanent authority that has granted certain fundamental conditions upon human beings. First and foremost, that each and every individual is valuable. This value is not determined by their fellow men, but by God. When Thomas Jefferson stated “All men are created equal,” it was an acknowledgment of the special creation of man. What separates mankind from the rest of creation is the conscience, which gives us the ability to understand right from wrong and ties the moral responsibility of each person to their choices. Freedom of conscience is fundamental to the human condition, and from the beginning of the human race, has proved that virtue must be freely chosen.   Otherwise, it is coerced and violates individual moral responsibility. It was this view of the human race that rights found their origin and meaning. Rights are “just claims” that are legitimate and permanent because they are bestowed by the ultimate authority.

We must place an emphasis on what is just when we question the claim that human beings, including little children, have “sexual rights.” The Biblical, ethical, and traditional view of sexuality is that it is an intimate act, rightly and justly carried out between a husband and wife. It is something wonderful when experienced within a marriage. Sexual intimacy strengthens the bond between a man and woman, and brings forth precious life.

What “sexual rights” as proposed by Planned Parenthood imply, is that human beings have a just claim to whatever sexual act they want to carry out, at any age.   There is no reference to the moral, spiritual, or real physical consequences of these choices, and the only legitimacy given for this proposed right is desire. Desire as a foundation for rights means that I can say “If I want to do this act, if I feel an inclination, I have a just claim for carrying it out.” There is no reference to the ethical or moral foundation of this claim, and such a viewpoint reduces the status of the human condition to an incoherent myriad of impulses.

If this is just, then the ancient and traditional definition of justice has lost meaning. Every law and human act has to be redefined (if we are to use desire as a foundation for morality) within this context. Experiencing pleasure becomes more important, and more “moral” than even life itself. This is a dangerous and frightening world view, and when taken to its logical end, it is an anti-human basis for both laws and “rights.”

The fundamental and unalienable foundation for our rights as Americans goes deeper than mere physical desires. If we are honest about the human condition we recognize not only that we are a special creation, but that we are also a fallible one. Desire does not justice and morality make, and we must not exchange “the Good” for what “feels good.” There is no legitimate basis for the claim of “sexual rights”- to say there is, is to redefine and devalue the human race. Freedom of conscience carries with it a temporal caveat; our choices matter, they have consequences, and affect much more than the individual making them. If we change the definition of what is ethical and just, and change the premise of our rights, it will change the fabric of our families, our communities and our nation. We must reason together and cross the moral barriers that have been created by those attempting to redefine humanity.








The dangers of Comprehensive Sexuality Education

In Abortion, Abstinence, AIDS, Child Development, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Education, Families, Free Speech, Freedom, Gender Identity, Government, Health Care, Homosexuality, Human Rights, Marriage, Parental Rights, Parenting, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Schools, Sex Education, Sexual Freedom, Sexual Orientation, Sexually Transmitted Disease, Transgender, Values on March 15, 2016 at 8:14 am

sex edby Jackie Bowles

It may sound good at first, but do the research to really understand all facets.


We’ve all had to endure “Sex Ed” at one point in our lives with its embarrassing movies and uncomfortable topics. Back in the day, while there was still concern for its curriculum, it was innocent enough that our parents agreed to let us go. Today, however, the world’s views on sexuality have changed and have switched to a “comprehensive sexuality education” (CSE) idea; the idea that we need to teach children how to have sexual pleasures; whether they implement the pleasure to themselves or with a partner. The “It’s all One” curriculum was presented a few years ago at a United Nations conference. The moderator said, “If we can just get this new comprehensive sex education program into every school and fully implemented around the globe, we can all stop working and go home! It would solve all our problems!” Some of its main purposes are to elevate such things as masturbation, oral and anal sex, and techniques for achieving an organism. And basically teaching our children to be gender and sexual rights’ activist.


Other areas that could be covered in a comprehensive sexuality education courses taught in your school could be:

  • CSE encourages acceptance and exploration of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities
  • CSE promotes high risk sexual behaviors (including anal and oral sex) and teaches they are safe.
  • CSE promotes sexual pleasure and promiscuity as a right for children.
  • CSE promotes abortion as safe and without consequences.
  • CSE encourages children to experiment sexually with individuals of their own sex or the opposite sex.
  • CSE claims access to “comprehensive sexuality education” is a human right.
  • CSE teaches children and youth they are sexual from birth.
  • CSE promotes condoms to children without informing them of their failure rates.
  • CSE promotes disrespect for parents and religious and cultural values.
  • CSE promotes sexual counseling, information or services to minors without parental consent.
  • CSE trains children to advocate for their “sexual rights” in laws and policies.
  • CSE encourages “peer to peer” sexuality education.

Knowing all of these different things, does it change your views on the sex ed” being taught to your children. I, for one, sure don’t want my children exposed to this information. In some states, however, parents are not even given the option to opt out. The CSE’s purpose is to undermine, with children, the views and ideas of their parents. It is to expose them to more options. The comprehensive sexuality education wants to introduce these ideas to those as young as kindergarten. We live in a confused world where we currently have over 60 genders. This astonishing number is not all that surprising if we are going into young children and confusing them about their sexual identities.

Interestingly enough it is Planned Parenthood that benefits from the teaching of Comprehensive Sexuality Education.  This is an entry for them to be able to become a part of that child’s life, as they offer different services, birth control and later abortions if needed. It is said that, “Lucrative “sexual and reproductive health care services” can include sexual counseling, family planning, contraception, condoms, abortion, testing and treatment for STIs, and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, as well as related commodities, pharmaceuticals, vaccines, etc. The early sexualization of children through CSE can create lifelong paying customers for these services, so this is big business.”

As parents we need to take a stand for our children by not allowing Comprehensive Sexuality Education to come into our schools and be taught to our children. Our rights as parents are being taken away and we are allowing others views to be infringed on our children if we participate in this program. Consider opting out and do your own teaching. As parents we can teach our children that sexual intimacy within marriage is rewarding, fulfilling and worth saving ourselves for.  

A great website with many different resources on Comprehensive Sexuality Education can be found at http://www.comprehensivesexualityeducation.org/.



Is Chastity About Controlling Women?

In Abstinence, Child Development, Choice, Families, Feminism, Free Speech, Freedom, Gender, Health Care, Marriage, Media, motherhood, Population Control, Religion, Sex Education, Sexual Freedom, Values on March 11, 2016 at 8:21 am

marriage feet in bedby Teralynn Nordgren

I’ve come across this idea – that chastity is about controlling women – a few times in the past year. The first was last summer when ESPN’s Bomani Jones said that chastity was stupid on the popular TV channel, and then on Twitter added, among other things, this statement: “I believe the underlying premise is flawed and about controlling women as much as anything else.” Shortly afterward, there was an article by Micheal Sonmore, who says he is a feminist, and that as such, he agreed to open up his marriage at his wife’s request so that she could explore her sexuality. He explains that any expectation of fidelity came from a chauvinist desire for control and would disregard his wife’s individuality. Most recently, I came across this idea as I read through the post titled “Training Your Child to be a Gender and Sexual Rights Activist” on the UFI website. It was within the bullet points from the Comprehensive Sex Education Curriculum. In particular there was this bullet point, with it’s heavy focus on females and, well, zero focus on males: “Girls may be discouraged or even punished for being sexually active. In most settings, girls receive contradictory messages about sex. Many are taught that they should not be sexually active prior to marriage.”

I raised my eyebrows when I first heard this concept. “Really? About controlling women?” I thought. I couldn’t understand. My understanding of chastity, in it’s most basic sense, is that it is a lifestyle for both men and women in which they are expected to be abstinent before marriage and faithful to each other after marriage. In other words: no extra-marital sex. In my religion, and in my home growing up, this lifestyle was taught to both the boys and the girls. So if chastity applies the same to men as women, why this focus on women and feminism?

Moreover, I thought about where chastity began. It’s a traditional lifestyle embraced by many societies around the world – Christians, Jews, and Hindus, to name a few. Chastity began long before contraceptives, abortion, and other practices that make ethics today more confusing. It began in a time when it would actually have benefitted women more directly than men. Think about it. If a woman were to have sex out of wedlock and conceive, without societal intervention she would be left to bear the responsibilities of pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing on her own, while the father could wander off freely (and he probably wouldn’t have even contracted an STD). Chastity is a lifestyle that protects women and children from this natural injustice.

Having heard this concept repeated more than once within so short a time, I thought the idea must be coming from somewhere. So I carefully searched the phrase “chastity about controlling women” on Google. The results surprised me. The entire first page is a list of websites about chastity belts for men. Honestly I didn’t read too far into it because it wasn’t what I was looking for, but if you glance through the results page it’s easy to get the jist of what is being promoted: women controlling when their male partners can have sex. According to some of the phrases on the results page, some men find this arrangement a turn-on. Interesting. Not at all what I expected, but maybe I misinterpreted Bomani Jones’ meaning. Maybe he meant chastity is about women who are controlling.

That would actually fit Mr. Jones’ other statements on Twitter about chastity. It doesn’t fit Micheal Sonmore’s interpretation though, nor does it reflect the contents of that Comprehensive Sex Education Curriculum.

I am aware that at different places and times – even in some parts of the world today – certain cultures have applied the idea of chastity unequally between men and women. In the book A History of Marriage, by Elizabeth Abbott, for example, the author explains that in 19th century western culture, “first-time brides were expected to be virgins, though first-time husbands did not need to be.” Women have all-too-often suffered greater shame and punishment for being unchaste than men have, which is really unfortunate and unfair. And while I couldn’t find the connection in writing anywhere, I think double-standards like this may be the reason some think of chastity as a way to control women and not men.

It’s sad to me that these are the views so many have of chastity. Yes, chastity has been applied and enforced in horrible ways at different times and places, but that does not mean that chastity itself is a horrible thing. It’s a lot like a kitchen knife. The purpose of the kitchen knife is to help individuals and families prepare food. It is particularly useful when preparing healthy foods like fresh vegetables. Unfortunately, some people have chosen to use kitchen knives to cause intense harm or even to murder others. That is not why kitchen knives were made, and although no one can deny that when they are used to harm others, the results are devastating, it would be unreasonable to say kitchen knives are terrible, no-good things altogether and that we should do away with all of them.

Maybe I was just lucky, but I learned about chastity in a pretty positive way. I won’t write the name of my religion here because I am not a spokeswoman for them, but I will say that it is one of the most common Christian religions in the United States. I had several lessons on chastity in church as I grew up, some with the boys and girls together in the same room. It wasn’t taught as a double-standard, nor as a way for one sex to control the other. Our leaders encouraged both sexes to be chaste. They also taught us why chastity is good and how to remain chaste (because yes, it takes some planning and self-discipline).

And what if someone in my religion had sex before marriage? Our leaders talked mostly about the well-known natural consequences of extra-marital sex – such as complicated relationships and the possibility of bringing children into the world before we were ready to be parents. There are a few   punishments that could come from the religious organization, but they are not cruel. The common punishment is that those who were unchaste aren’t allowed to participate in ordinances for a certain period of time. The most severe punishment is that an individual can be taken off the records of the church (basically un-baptized). They would never be barred from attending church services or classes simply because they sinned, though. (Considering we all sin, that would be hypocritical, wouldn’t it?) Also, there is a way for those who are taken off the records of the church to be re-baptized and regain full-fellowship – meaning they can again participate in ordinances etc.

Unlike what is sometimes shown in the media, no one takes anyone’s babies away, and no one forces anyone to get married. If a baby is involved, either placing the baby for adoption or getting married (if the couple feels it is right for them) is encouraged, but a birth mother is allowed to keep her baby without any further consequences from the religion. The policy is to let the birth parents decide what family arrangement would be best. I have known several people who have gone through the processes I have described in my religion, and I have every respect for both the policies that are in place and the people to whom they have been applied.

I practiced chastity through my teenage years and my early twenties. When I married my husband in my mid-twenties, we were both virgin. My belief in other aspects of my religion have wavered, but I have never regretted only having sex with one man, or – for that matter – waiting until my mid-twenties to become sexually active. I have considered what it would be like to live a different lifestyle, but I feel that chastity has given me so much peace of mind that whatever thrills might come from other choices aren’t worth it. Chastity is not about controlling women – nor is it about controlling men. Chastity is about self-control, and I am grateful to have been taught this way.

Doing Good in the World: Crisis Pregnancy Centers

In Abortion, Abstinence, Birth Rate, Child Development, Choice, Demographic Decline, Diane Robertson, Education, Families, Family Planning, Health Care, Sanctity of Life, Sex Education, Single Mothers, Values on March 9, 2016 at 5:44 am

Gary Ingoldby Diane Robertson

Two Community Crises Pregnancy Clinics in Florida are saving lives, changing lives, and helping communities one person at a time.

These clinics offer pregnancy testing, ultrasounds, professional counseling, clothing and other material services, maternity homes, transition homes which teach personal disciplines and life skills, drug abuse treatments, and anything the women need.

Gary Ingold, CEO of Community Pregnancy Clinics (CPCI) said that, “When they [women] come into our building, we present a professional environment to them that is clean and loving…We treat them really well.”

When women enter the clinics, they find a warm, inviting, and professional office. The offices are well lit, clean, and organized with tasteful art adorning the walls. The receptionists are professional and smiling with up to date equipment. Each clinic has a registered nurse onsite to help the women. Ingold pays his employees at industry standards, assuring he can get professionals. The people who work there know what they are doing, do it well, and can be trusted.

When women come in, they are treated kindly and with respect.

Both clinics are medically licensed by the State to provide ultrasounds and professional counseling. They are overseen by a medically licensed physician. All services are free of charge.

CPCI also partners with another non-profit group to offer abstinence education to the community. Decreasing unwanted pregnancies helps reduce the number of abortions as well. They teach at private schools, churches, and youth groups.

Both clinics improve lives and save lives and their numbers show. Ninety percent of women who test positive for a pregnancy at their clinic decide to continue their pregnancies. In 2013 the two clinics saved 1,211 babies from abortion, and 1,187 in 2014. In the 41 years since the clinics have been opened over 10,000 babies have been saved from abortion. The abortion ratio in Collier County, where the clinics reside, is 139 abortions to every 1,000 births. Alachua County, home to the University of Florida, has a ratio of 620 abortions for every 1,000 births. Clearly, CPCI is doing a lot of good in their community.


Gary Ingold

Parental Vigilance, Not Political Activism

In Abstinence, Child Development, Choice, Democracy, Education, Families, Free Speech, Gender, Gender Identity, Government, Marriage, Media, Parental Rights, Parenting, Planned Parenthood, Religion, Schools, Sex Education, Sexual Freedom, Sexual Orientation, Values on February 29, 2016 at 8:47 am

parents teachby Erin Weist

Citizens in Australia have been dealing with a politically-motivated scheme trying to force its way into their schools.  The program, entitled “Safe Schools Coalition,” seems useful at first glance.  Its focus is on teaching anti-bullying messages.  However, as parents read more detail about the program they became alarmed at its overly-sexualized message.  One MP addressed Parliament to warn about the dangers of this message.  (Watch the 5 minute video HERE).

The video states, “If someone proposed exposing a child to this material the parents would probably call the police because it sounds a lot like ‘grooming’ work that a sexual predator might undertake.’’  Likewise, the program was blasted for linking to a website entitled “Minus18,” a website giving information on chest binding, penis tucking and sex toys.  It also linked out to other sites which promoted pornography, group sex and gay bars.  After the publicity it appears these links have been removed but it brings forth the question about the motives for those promoting these programs.  Certainly it is not protecting children.  And almost as certainly, the anti-bullying message seems to be a cover to promoting alternative lifestyles.  If I planned to teach my kids a lesson about not bullying other people who are different, I would focus on respect, kindness, empathy, moral character and other fortifying virtues.  This tactic of promoting debilitating sexual choices under the guise of empathy or anti-bullying is patently false and purposefully misleading.

And thousands of Australians agree.  A petition was sent to the Senate expressing concern about this coalition, stating that it went “beyond education and [compelled] students into advocacy of a social engineering agenda.”  One journalist succinctly summarized the parental philosophy against teaching kids LGBT issues, stating: “I believe that I should be allowed to choose the ‘when’, ‘where’ and ‘how’ I talk to my children about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) issues – NOT schools and NOT at 11 years old.”

I will teach my children that sex is a beautiful gift from God, one to be used with only their spouse.  I will teach my boys that they were meant to be boys and I will teach my daughter that she was meant to be a girl.  I will teach my children that other people may disagree with these teachings and that is their right.  But it is my right to teach them in my home.  And any attempts from third parties to interfere or railroad these teachings will be met with immovable resistance.

There must be greater respect about these issues.  I understand that people live their lives differently than mine.  I teach my children to love others, to show compassion, to extend forgiveness, to treat them like brothers & sisters.  I also teach them God’s commandments and encourage them to follow.  If someone disagrees with those teachings we should be able to come together and create a respectful dialogue.  But these movements are completely biased and attempt to steamroll these ideals.  (One of great concern in the US is SIECUS: Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, founded in the 60s by a former Medical Director for Planned Parenthood.  One of their main goals is to “eliminate abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.”  

Thankfully, their agenda of Comprehensive Sexual Education failed to pass in my home state of Utah in last weeks’ legislative session.)  I would call on these groups, legislators and parents to work together on compromises that fill the needs of all, rather than the needs of one.

Utah Parents: This one is for you!

In Abstinence, Sex Education on February 22, 2016 at 8:59 pm

Your Children Need You to Speak Up Today

Sex ed in schools.jpgHB 246, “Reproductive Health Amendments,” is a Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE)  bill that would not be good for Utah students.  This bill will be presented in the Utah House Education Committee tomorrow, Tuesday at 4:10 p.m.

Over the next 24 hours, the Utah House Education Committee members need to hear from you!

Read below to learn what is wrong with Comprehensive Sex Education.

Please contact the Republican members of the Utah House Education Committee, and respectfully ask them to Vote No on this bill:
•    Write to individual emails to individual committee members (group emails are less effective)
•    Write in the subject line:  Opposing Comprehensive Sex Ed
•    Keep body of email short and simple, just 2 -3 points
•    Thank them for their dedicated service to the families of our state
•    Include your city under your name so they know you are a Utah resident


Brad Last – Chair (R) blast@le.utah.gov
Lowry SnowVice Chair (R) vlsnow@le.utah.gov
LaVar Christensen (R) lavarchristensen@le.utah.gov
Kim Coleman (R) kimcoleman@le.utah.gov
Bruce Cutler (R) brucecutler@le.utah.gov
Steve Eliason (R) seliason@le.utah.gov
Justin Fawson (R) justinfawson@le.utah.gov
Francis Gibson (R)  fgibson@le.utah.gov
Eric Hutchings (R)  ehutchings@le.utah.gov
Dave Lifferth (R) dlifferth@le.utah.gov
Dan McCay (R) dmccay@le.utah.gov
Mike Noel (R)  mnoel@kanab.net

What is wrong with comprehensive sex education?  

ItsPerfectlyNormaleditedversion.jpgComprehensive Sexuality Education includes instruction on how to use different forms of contraception and engage in different sexual behaviors – with or without a partner.

But the truth is there is no such thing as “safe sex” for unmarried teens. All the contraception in the world cannot protect their hearts.

We expect our schools to teach the best practice in every other subject. Abstinence-based education–or “sexual risk avoidance education”– is the best practice in this subject.  We don’t teach kindergarteners how to play with fire safely, we teach them fire-playing abstinence. We don’t teach teens how to drink or do drugs safely, we teach them drug and alcohol abstinence. We teach abstinence from virtually every behavior that hurts individuals and society. Is there anything more potentially harmful than the life-long consequences of early sexual activity?

Comprehensive Sex Education prepares young people “not for the not for the fullness of friendship, intimacy and love, but for casual relationships and recreational sex.”

For more information on the content of a Comprehensive Sex Education curriculum and how it could impact your family, please see:

“Training your Child to be a Gender And Sexual Rights Advocate”

Rose Marie Murray.jpg

Faithfully for Families,

Rose Marie Murray

Director, United Families Utah

The Shocking State of Sex Education in Ontario and What it Means for the Rest of Us

In Abstinence, Canada, Child Development, Choice, Education, Families, father, Free Speech, Freedom, Gender, Gender Identity, Government, Homosexuality, Human Rights, Marriage, Media, Non-Discrimination, Parental Rights, Parenting, Pornography, Religious Freedom, Religious rights, Schools, Sex Education, Sexual Freedom, Sexual Orientation, Transgender, Values on February 19, 2016 at 1:13 pm

sex ed protestby Elise Ellsworth

Kids in Ontario have been learning things a little differently this year.  There has not been as much time for the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic as the schools have a new challenge: sexual re-education from kindergarten on up.  The area’s new sexual education program, Fully Alive, is one of the most liberal anywhere.  It began, despite protest, this school year. Some basics of the program:

The “Fully Alive” curriculum requires that children be taught detailed information on homosexual practices, the importance of “carrying a condom”  and other sexual information that children do not need or want to know.  This curriciulum was prepared under the direction of a confessed child sexual predator, Benjamin Levine whose links to child pornography are well-established.  It includes statements such as: “exploring one’s body by touching is something that many people do and find pleasurable.  It is not harmful  …” and other even more detailed statements on the nature of homosexuality, the importance of “getting information from a credible source” (health professional, not parent), the normal nature of two mom and two dad households, and gender identity as something that “may be different from one’s birth-assigned sex.”

The teaching of these radical concepts begins as early as grades 1 (basics of sexuality) and 3 (gender as a matter of personal choice and homosexuality).  Nowhere in the curriculum are the words “love” or “marriage” mentioned.

Religious schools are required to teach the curriculum and parents are being denied the right to opt out – Catholic and other religious schools in Ontario are also required to teach the program and are struggling to make accommodations.  Children in Catholic schools that receive state funding now must learn about condoms, gender identity and abortion along with everyone else.  

In at least one county, parents have also been denied the right to opt their children out of the parts of the program discussing homosexuality and gender identity stating that “where the work is about inclusion … we will not provide religious or any other accommodation.” Effectively, however, the “inclusive” program excludes individuals of many religions.

The program has the effect of denying religious individuals access to public education – Faced with the indoctrination of their children, religious individuals are left with only one option, pull their children out of public schools altogether.  And this is what a growing number of parents are doing.  In the Muslim community, where there are few private options, parents find their hands tied.  Muslim homeschooling groups are seeing large increases. But it’s a tough call.  As one Muslim parent put it: “We don’t want to be outside the mainstream.  Our call is not anti-public school system, but we feel there should be a system that should accommodate all people.”

Many parents are too busy today to pay attention to what their children are being taught in public schools – but other countries and states across the United States have slowly been moving toward mandatory public sexual indoctrination of children.  And this effective denial of religious and parental rights poses a risk for the health of children and for society as a whole.


In Memory of Antonin Scalia

In Abortion, Abstinence, Choice, Constitution, Courts, Democracy, Diane Robertson, Drug Use, Education, Families, Free Speech, Freedom, Gay rights, Government, Homosexuality, Human Rights, Marriage, Prostitution, Same-Sex Marriage, Sanctity of Life, Sexual Freedom, Supreme Court, UFI, Values on February 17, 2016 at 7:30 am

scaliaby Diane Robertson

Here at UFI, we are very saddened at the sudden passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He was a champion of both the U.S. Constitution and the family. As a husband to Maureen, father of 9, and grandfather to 28, Justice Scalia leaves behind a great posterity and great legacy.

Justice Scalia was an outspoken critic of abortion, and the homosexual agenda. He was the most prominent and outspoken advocate for the orginalists view of constitutional law, which holds true to what the Founding Fathers would have intended.

At UFI we echo the words of Chief Justice John G. Roberts:

“He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues. His passing is a great loss to the Court and the country he so loyally served. We extend our deepest condolences to his wife Maureen and his family.”

He was a great man. We will deeply miss his influence in law and on the entire nation.

Here are some quotes that echo the good man he was.

“I attack ideas. I don’t attack people. And some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can’t separate the two, you gotta get another day job.” CBS News

“More important than your obligation to follow your conscience, or at least prior to it, is your obligation to form your conscience correctly.” NY Post

“It is difficult to maintain the illusion that we are interpreting a Constitution, rather than inventing one, when we amend its provisions so breezily.” Bloomberg

“Bear in mind that brains and learning, like muscle and physical skill, are articles of commerce. They are bought and sold. You can hire them by the year or by the hour. The only thing in the world not for sale is character.” New York Times

“Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.” California Lawyer

“A man who has made no enemies is probably not a very good man.” Business Insider

“This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “ Truth Revolt

” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.” Truth Revolt

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.” CBS News

“to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.” Truth Revolt

“[The Texas anti-sodomy law] undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. … So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery.” Cornell University Law School

“Just ponder the significance of the Court’s decision to take matters into its own hands. The Court’s revision of the law authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to spend tens of billions of dollars every year in tax credits on federal Exchanges. It affects the price of insurance for millions of Americans. It diminishes the participation of the States in the implementation of the Act. It vastly expands the reach of the Act’s individual mandate, whose scope depends in part on the availability of credits. What a parody today’s decision makes of Hamilton’s assurances to the people of New York: ‘The legislature not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over . . . the purse; no direction . . . of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.’” The Blaze

The Constitution is “not a living document,” he told the SMU crowd in 2013. “It’s dead, dead, dead,” Scalia added, “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” Politico




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 169 other followers